• Recess appointments and the Constitution

    From Stan Brown@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 15 21:26:54 2024
    As you may know, Trump has expressed a desire for the Senate to give
    up its Constitutional power and duty to advise and consent on
    appointments by recessing, so that he can make his appointments
    without the Senate second-guessing him.

    I haven't seen this in the news media, but for Trump to get the power
    to make recess appointments is a bit more complicated than just
    getting the Republicans in the Senate to agree to adjourn.

    The basic authority for recess appointments is in Article I section
    2: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may
    happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which
    shall expire at the End of their next Session." ("A Congress lasts
    for two years, with each year constituting a separate session."[3]
    Since Trump would not be in a position to make appointments till
    January 20, 2025, the "next session" would be the 2026 legislative
    session.)

    However, the Senate cannot unilaterally go into recess, according to
    Article I section 5: "Neither House, during the Session of Congress,
    shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three
    days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall
    be sitting." This means that if the senate wants to recess for more
    than 3 days, it must have the affirmative consent of the House. Since
    both houses have only a slender majority of Republicans, not all of
    whom are MAGA, it's not a foregone conclusion that the House would in
    fact approve, even if the Senate goes along with Trump's plan.

    The New York Times reports,[1] "The Supreme Court has said that
    Senate recesses of at least 10 days are sufficient to allow a
    president to sidestep confirmation for appointees." But each house
    must approve the other's adjournment for "more than three days".

    On the other hand, Article II section 3 says "he [the President] may,
    on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them,
    and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think
    proper. ..." But on the other other hand, if the Senate votes to
    adjourn itself and the House doesn't vote to adjourn _itself_, that
    is not a mere "disagreement with respect to the time of adjournment."

    I suspect there may be a new Supreme Court case about recess
    appointments if Trump doesn't get what he wants. It's anybody's guess
    what his Court will do then.



    [1] <https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/12/us/politics/trump- republicans-senate.html> [2]

    [2] Here is a CNN writeup on the 2014 decision that recess
    apointments can only be made in a recess lasting 10 days or more: <https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/26/justice/supreme-court-recess- appointments/index.html>

    [3] <https://clerk.house.gov/Help/ViewLegislativeFAQs>

    --
    Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
    Shikata ga nai...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to Stan Brown on Fri Nov 15 21:55:27 2024
    On 11/15/2024 9:26 PM, Stan Brown wrote:

    ...

    I suspect there may be a new Supreme Court case about recess
    appointments if Trump doesn't get what he wants. It's anybody's guess
    what his Court will do then.



    ....


    The Times article goes on a bit

    "Since the mid-2000s, both Republicans and Democrats have systematically
    used so-called pro forma sessions to block presidents from making recess appointments. When the Senate adjourns for longer breaks, a senator goes
    into the otherwise empty chamber every three days and bangs the gavel — technically carving up a long recess into a series of short ones.

    President Barack Obama tried to challenge that innovative tactic as unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court upheld it in 2014."

    The pro forma sessions are being used by the Senate right now. The
    process only works if the Senator bring the Senate into session and then adjourns it via unanimous consent. One Senator could block that

    Since both houses must approve a recess of more than ten days then a few Republican members could block the the approval.

    Also note that in the Senate debate is limited to two hours on a
    nomination since 2019.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to Stan Brown on Sat Nov 16 07:41:10 2024
    On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 21:26:54 -0800, Stan Brown wrote:

    As you may know, Trump has expressed a desire for the Senate to give up
    its Constitutional power and duty to advise and consent on appointments
    by recessing, so that he can make his appointments without the Senate second-guessing him.

    I haven't seen this in the news media, but for Trump to get the power to
    make recess appointments is a bit more complicated than just getting the Republicans in the Senate to agree to adjourn.

    The basic authority for recess appointments is in Article I section 2:
    "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall
    expire at the End of their next Session." ("A Congress lasts for two
    years, with each year constituting a separate session."[3] Since Trump
    would not be in a position to make appointments till January 20, 2025,
    the "next session" would be the 2026 legislative session.)

    However, the Senate cannot unilaterally go into recess, according to
    Article I section 5: "Neither House, during the Session of Congress,
    shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three
    days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting." This means that if the senate wants to recess for more than 3
    days, it must have the affirmative consent of the House. Since both
    houses have only a slender majority of Republicans, not all of whom are
    MAGA, it's not a foregone conclusion that the House would in fact
    approve, even if the Senate goes along with Trump's plan.

    The New York Times reports,[1] "The Supreme Court has said that Senate recesses of at least 10 days are sufficient to allow a president to
    sidestep confirmation for appointees." But each house must approve the other's adjournment for "more than three days".

    On the other hand, Article II section 3 says "he [the President] may,
    on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and
    in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.
    ..." But on the other other hand, if the Senate votes to adjourn itself
    and the House doesn't vote to adjourn _itself_, that is not a mere "disagreement with respect to the time of adjournment."

    I suspect there may be a new Supreme Court case about recess
    appointments if Trump doesn't get what he wants. It's anybody's guess
    what his Court will do then.



    [1] <https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/12/us/politics/trump- republicans-senate.html> [2]

    [2] Here is a CNN writeup on the 2014 decision that recess apointments
    can only be made in a recess lasting 10 days or more: <https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/26/justice/supreme-court-recess- appointments/index.html>

    [3] <https://clerk.house.gov/Help/ViewLegislativeFAQs>

    Less legal and more political, but the parallels with the (ultimately
    unlawful) prorogation of the UK parliament in 2019 are interesting.
    Especially when the antecedents of the English civil war are considered.
    (Which I believe still has bearing on some US ideas of jurisprudence
    today ?).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to Stan Brown on Sat Nov 16 09:12:02 2024
    On 11/16/2024 12:26 AM, Stan Brown wrote:

    As you may know, Trump has expressed a desire for the Senate to give
    up its Constitutional power and duty to advise and consent on
    appointments by recessing, so that he can make his appointments
    without the Senate second-guessing him.

    I haven't seen this in the news media, but for Trump to get the power
    to make recess appointments is a bit more complicated than just
    getting the Republicans in the Senate to agree to adjourn.

    The basic authority for recess appointments is in Article I section
    2: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may
    happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which
    shall expire at the End of their next Session." ("A Congress lasts
    for two years, with each year constituting a separate session."[3]
    Since Trump would not be in a position to make appointments till
    January 20, 2025, the "next session" would be the 2026 legislative
    session.)

    However, the Senate cannot unilaterally go into recess, according to
    Article I section 5: "Neither House, during the Session of Congress,
    shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three
    days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall
    be sitting." This means that if the senate wants to recess for more
    than 3 days, it must have the affirmative consent of the House. Since
    both houses have only a slender majority of Republicans, not all of
    whom are MAGA, it's not a foregone conclusion that the House would in
    fact approve, even if the Senate goes along with Trump's plan.

    The New York Times reports,[1] "The Supreme Court has said that
    Senate recesses of at least 10 days are sufficient to allow a
    president to sidestep confirmation for appointees." But each house
    must approve the other's adjournment for "more than three days".

    On the other hand, Article II section 3 says "he [the President] may,
    on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them,
    and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think
    proper. ..." But on the other other hand, if the Senate votes to
    adjourn itself and the House doesn't vote to adjourn _itself_, that
    is not a mere "disagreement with respect to the time of adjournment."

    I suspect there may be a new Supreme Court case about recess
    appointments if Trump doesn't get what he wants. It's anybody's guess
    what his Court will do then.



    [1] <https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/12/us/politics/trump- republicans-senate.html> [2]

    [2] Here is a CNN writeup on the 2014 decision that recess
    apointments can only be made in a recess lasting 10 days or more: <https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/26/justice/supreme-court-recess- appointments/index.html>

    [3] <https://clerk.house.gov/Help/ViewLegislativeFAQs>


    Something about this doesn't quite make sense. He wants to make recess appointments to avoid needing Senate confirmation. But doesn't he need
    Senate approval to do the 10-day recess? So if the Senate plans to
    resist some of the appointments, why would they agree to the recess?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stan Brown@21:1/5 to Roy on Sat Nov 16 15:03:52 2024
    On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 21:55:27 -0800 (PST), Roy wrote:
    Since both houses must approve a recess of more than ten days then a few Republican members could block the the approval.

    More than three days, not more than ten.

    I quoted the Constitution and cited the article and section in the
    post you were following up on, namely <[email protected]>.

    --
    Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
    Shikata ga nai...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to Stan Brown on Sat Nov 16 17:31:55 2024
    On 11/16/2024 3:03 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
    On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 21:55:27 -0800 (PST), Roy wrote:
    Since both houses must approve a recess of more than ten days then a few
    Republican members could block the the approval.

    More than three days, not more than ten.

    I quoted the Constitution and cited the article and section in the
    post you were following up on, namely <[email protected]>.


    You are correct however for the purpose of this discussion a recess
    duration has to be ten days or more for an appointment to be made.

    See Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014).

    "In sum, we conclude that the phrase “the recess” applies to both intra-session and inter-session recesses. If a Senate recess is so short
    that it does not require the consent of the House, it is too short to
    trigger the Recess Appointments Clause. See Art. I, §5, cl. 4. And a
    recess lasting less than 10 days is presumptively too short as well."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)